Home « Forum « Story Discussion and Feedback

Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Good military tale

felsonz

I'm looking for a really good story that has any form of military service. It can be a minuscule amount if need be. It just needs to have strongly changed the protagonists life. I have read a few but forget there names.

ustourist

@felsonz

Two classics by rlfj
A Fresh Start
and
The Grim Reaper
Both use military service as part of a life, not the whole.
I would also suggest reading all 3 of Refusenik's stories. One finishes with a military element, but it is essential to read that book before the second part. Human Phoenix / Human Man, and a separate story, Island Mine.

Replies:   felsonz
felsonz

@ustourist

Thanks a bunch for your suggestions. I have actually read all of those as they are extremely popular. And rightfully so. They are incredible stories worthy of mainstream publication. When they all of those stories were recommended to me and I finally got around to reading them my mind was blown. Stories similar to rlfj epics and same with the human Phoenix universe would really be great reads but I have yet to find any that really grab me and don't make me cringe.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist

@felsonz

I agree all those could be mainstream.

Another one. It is definitely military, but slightly offbeat as well...
Oscar Meyers by Lazlo Zalezac

Another two very well written ones are by black_coffee
Sparks
and
The Gunny and Lenore.
Both military but character driven, but need to be read in that order

Replies:   felsonz
richardshagrin

Does military in the future (science fiction military) qualify? If it does I can think of several very good stories. If it doesn't, sorry.

Replies:   felsonz
felsonz

@ustourist

I have read oscar Meyers and the whole universe is amazing. But I will try the black coffee stories thank you.

Replies:   sejintenej
felsonz

@richardshagrin

Only minimally. If it goes to far into sci-fi realm I can't continue suspending my belief. But if it a little sci-fi. I can handle. I love normal sci-fi and fantasy stories. But if is a military slant I like it to be realistic.

Ernest Bywater

@felsonz

Quite a few of the Clan Amir stories are military related, although mainly action stories they do have some that are more chracter driven than others.

http://storiesonline.net/universe/891/clan-amir

No Names - No pack Drill is a true account of part of my father's time in the military during WW2

http://storiesonline.net/s/13862/no-names-no-pack-drill

Replies:   felsonz
felsonz
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

I have read your story already. It was a very touching and thought provoking tribute. I want to read the clan amir stories and universe but it is a little confusing and overwhelming. I can't figure out in what order I should read the stories. I have been trying to start that universe for over a year but could never figure out where to start

richardshagrin

@felsonz

I probably should let the expert, the author, guide you, but there are numbers associated with each story, the lower the number, the earlier in the sequence the story. You probably should read 1.1 before you look at 5.3.

Ernest Bywater

@felsonz

could never figure out where to start


I just got back from shopping and respond to an email about this, and hope it was yours. But, essentially, you should start with the background material and follow the chronological order as written in the time-line. When I could publish all the stories at SoL due to the prior publishing contract expiring I refurbished the system to have the titles start with a numbering sequence to put them in chronological order which also matches the original 7 books.

http://storiesonline.net/s/55442/clan-amir-background-info-amp-time-line

The first story actually written was The Dareed War then I backtracked to write Heritage and started to fill in the start of the series.

Replies:   felsonz
felsonz

@Ernest Bywater

Thank you for your help and I shall start ready with much enthusiasm. I just read another of your stories. It was the top rated story on your page. I really liked it because the people in the story treated the marine with the respect that every veteran, and every person who defends another person should receive.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@felsonz

the respect that every veteran, and every person who defends another person should receive.


I wrote Always a Marine as a way of honouring all who serve in the military of every country. However, I used the USMC because I'd just finished doing a lot of research on the USMC for another story, so I had the research do double duty. Coming Home is a similar type of story, but very different in the approach.

QM

Whilst it's a bit rude to blow your own trumpet, you could always try Return to Sanity by my good self

http://storiesonline.net/s/11443/return-to-sanity-drama-story

As it seems to tick the boxes you are looking for.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@QM

Whilst it's a bit rude to blow your own trumpet


Not rude in these types of thread, who knows a story better than the person who wrote it, so they can answer about it best.

Oyster

"A Charmed Life" by The Outsider

http://finestories.com/a/The_Outsider
http://finestories.com/s/10527:i

BlinkReader

There is another series of stories to recomend: "Jade force of Misera".

It speaks something of military as it should be :)

felsonz

Thanks everyone in the community. I aprecitate the help and I now have a few stories to read that will last me a long time. This is a great community.

Fia1

@felsonz

http://storiesonline.net/s/74743/marine-games by Frabarn

a good read

cheers

sejintenej

@felsonz

I have read oscar Meyers and the whole universe is amazing. But I will try the black coffee stories thank you.

The two Black Coffee stories are IMHO good individually. After The Gunny and Lenore Black Coffee suggested that there would be a third story but nothing yet unfortunately; I'm waiting!.

Replies:   Grant
Grant

@sejintenej

After The Gunny and Lenore Black Coffee suggested that there would be a third story but nothing yet unfortunately; I'm waiting!.

I'm still hoping for a follow up to McAllister's Redemption.

Jim S
Updated:

@felsonz


I'm looking for a really good story that has any form of military service. It can be a minuscule amount if need be. It just needs to have strongly changed the protagonists life. I have read a few but forget there names.


One of my personal favorites is Hunter by Lazlo Zalezac. Extraordinary.

Edit: I could also toss in A Toast In An Empty Bar by Jay Cantrell. Also extraordinary but for a different reason.

G Younger

Jade Force of Misera Universe

Flight of the Code Monkey

Mike Cropo's Wolves and Dragons stories

Silver Wings

Grim Reaper

The Private

Von Solon's Universe

Pretty CAPable

Anthony Carter Universe

Replies:   BlinkReader  Jim S
BlinkReader

@G Younger

The Private


This is Story (with big S) where I spent most time waiting for new chapters, and have eaten most of my nails for any indication of news about ...

Only advice I can give you for this masterpiece:
- Story is one of "must read",
- But read it only if you have nerves enough to wait year(s) for new chapter...

Jim S

@G Younger

Jade Force of Misera Universe


I was going to suggest that one also but, frankly, it can be just a tad off putting to those of us of the more liberal persuasion. But, come to think of it, so could Hunter (from the same author) which I also recommended.

Replies:   graybyrd
graybyrd

@Jim S

Actually both of those are a comforting read for those of the "scorched earth, poisoned wells, salted fields, leave nothing alive behind" asymmetrical warfare philosophy with a fair bit of xenophobic, racist application of rules of warfare of a ruthless cold-blooded machine logic: submit, comply or die.

Not for the faint of heart. After millions of men, women, children and infants--combatants and non-combatants guilty by proximity--are run through the grinder, the protagonist feels twinges of remorse but finds consolation in feelings of "they forced me to do it."

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@graybyrd

Actually both of those are a comforting read for those of the "scorched earth, poisoned wells, salted fields, leave nothing alive behind" asymmetrical warfare philosophy with a fair bit of xenophobic, racist application of rules of warfare of a ruthless cold-blooded machine logic: submit, comply or die.


That describes Hunter to a T. Jade Force of Misera is a more subtle dig at the idea that there should exist "rules" for warfare, e.g. The Geneva Conventions. Personally, I find it a little offputting that Western civilization's response to the absolute horror that war represents is to introduce "rules" to make it more palatable. Apparently, so does Lazlo.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Jim S

Personally, I find it a little offputting that Western civilization's response to the absolute horror that war represents is to introduce "rules" to make it more palatable.


Well, the point of the Geneva Convention rules isn't to make war more palatable, but to prevent the annihilation of civilian populations.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@Dominions Son


Well, the point of the Geneva Convention rules isn't to make war more palatable, but to prevent the annihilation of civilian populations.


And this works to make war less palatable? Or more palatable? No grey area here. It's either/or

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Jim S

And this works to make war less palatable? Or more palatable? No grey area here. It's either/or


No, it isn't necessarily either/or, it could well be neither.

But that isn't the point. Your original comment to which I was replying implies that making war more palatable was the intent not just an unintended consequence.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Dominions Son

Your original comment to which I was replying implies that making war more palatable was the intent not just an unintended consequence.


I don't see that in my original quote. I see it implying the effect. Which was my intent.

But it isn't the first time that an altruistic policy of the liberal (modern day definition, not classical) mind resulted in unintended consequences. I'll put forth another example -- The War on Poverty. I'm sure that said "war" was not intended to destroy the structure of the African-American family in the US (to name just one) but to alleviate poverty. Which, apparently, it hasn't done as poverty hasn't retreated in the intervening years.

One must tread lightly when considering things that might significantly impact the social structure. But that's a topic for another time.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Rambulator

My father was in WW 2 and after hearing about some of his stories I strongly believed in the Geneva Convention, but with what has happened since 9/11
I have been in favor of using Jade force tactics in the middle east country's.They never signed it and never intend to abide by it.

Dominions Son

@Jim S

I'll put forth another example -- The War on Poverty. I'm sure that said "war" was not intended to destroy the structure of the African-American family in the US (to name just one) but to alleviate poverty.


While I doubt that destruction of the African-American family structure was an overall-intent (it may or may not have been an intentional feature of some of the individual anti-poverty programs), alleviating poverty was also not the intent.

There are two main features that put the lie to any intent to alleviate poverty.

1. The insistence on measuring poverty relative to median income rather than the ability to acquire basic needs. This insures that economic growth can not reduce poverty.

2. Anti-poverty subsidies/support payments (cash welfare) are excluded from income for the purpose of determining poverty. This insures that anti-poverty programs can never reduce poverty levels.

Jim S

There are two main features that put the lie to any intent to alleviate poverty.


I couldn't agree more. The following quote may be a little more helpful in understanding the true motivation:

President Obama owes a debt of gratitude to former President Lyndon Johnson for the "War on Poverty" programs he proposed in his 1964 Great Society speech. Johnson was well aware that by federalizing his proposals he was cementing black allegiance to the Democratic Party for years to come. In fact, it is reported that Johnson, in an attempt to assuage the fears of southern governors, said that his plan was "to have them n*****s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." Johnson's plan worked masterfully.


You can find the above at a number of sources as it's widely known. I got it from http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2012/11/14/lbj-curse-black-vote

Altruistic? Don't think so, Charlie Brown.....

richardshagrin

To avoid the consequences of paying for mothers without husbands perhaps a more effective war on poverty would be to require job preferences be given to men with a wife, and/or possibly a wife with children. It could be done more easily for government jobs the same way veterans preferences are given. But tax credits or punitive taxes for non-compliance would work for business jobs. If the consequence of divorce was for the employee to lose his job, or at least the preference that got him his job if he had to get another one, there might be less dissolution of marriages. I have no idea if this would work, but it might make an interesting story.

Replies:   Grant  sejintenej
Grant

@richardshagrin

If the consequence of divorce was for the employee to lose his job, or at least the preference that got him his job if he had to get another one, there might be less dissolution of marriages.

Yep, got to keep those couples together, no matter how much damage it causes them, their children, friends, associates etc.

Replies:   LonelyDad
LonelyDad

@Grant

Right now the system is set up so that couples that try to stay together are penalized financially. Richard was just offering some ideas on ways to keep that from happening, focusing on married couples currently being rewarded for splitting up.

I personally think that rather than making an abrupt cutoff of benefits when income reaches a certain level, put in some kind of graduated tapering off of benefits. I know that because my income is just over the limit I don't qualify for any benefits, even though there are months when unexpected bills make things extremely tight.

BlinkReader

...making war more palatable ...


Pity that (almost) nobody of you has been active in any war, because there is absolutely nothing that can make any war palatable.

So, for me Lazlo has made very good point in his "Jade Force of Misera" - make war so unpalatable, that at the end nobody is never ever going to think to start another war.

Replies:   Jim S  Grant
Jim S

@BlinkReader

So, for me Lazlo has made very good point in his "Jade Force of Misera" - make war so unpalatable, that at the end nobody is never ever going to think to start another war.


Precisely. I think he is making the same statement in Hunter, just not as blatantly.

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Jim S

Precisely. I think he is making the same statement in Hunter


He definitely made that statement. I like to put it as follows however since the same statement can apply to different situations:

No one goes through the valley of hell without being changed.
The changes and scars are not always visible or detectable by either the eye or medical instruments.

But those scars and changes are always there, although they can fade over time.

Its also why I think it takes going through that valley in order to be able to understand another person's walk through it.

All the trips through that valley leave a life long scar of one form or another. There is no way to deny that fact.

Replies:   LonelyDad
Grant

@BlinkReader

make war so unpalatable, that at the end nobody is never ever going to think to start another war.

Those that start wars aren't the ones that fight them.
It doesn't matter how unpalatable war might be, they will still occur as long as there are people that believe they can win one, or do what ever they like without the rest of the world opposing them.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Grant

Those that start wars aren't the ones that fight them.


Very true today. In ancient times when the leaders of a group had to also lead their troops into battle they were a lot more careful about going to war, but since the leaders started to lead from behind they've become more willing to have wars, and the further back they lead from, the more willing they are to start a war.

richardshagrin

One of the reasons humanity hasn't had a nuclear war, since WW2 showed the Japanese the error of starting one, is that the commanders and politicians who might also be nuked have decided not to have one.

LonelyDad

@docholladay

Ernest, you wrote these words, and they resonated in me in the same way as what Doc wrote.

"All returned service personnel leave something behind them, be it in the jungle or in the sand. Some leave their lives, some leave a body part, some leave blood, some leave their minds, but all who return alive and sane leave behind a lot of their peace of mind.

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@LonelyDad


Ernest, you wrote these words, and they resonated in me in the same way as what Doc wrote.


That's because it's the truth recognised by all who've served in a war zone, whether they fought or were in a support role, and their families. Sadly, the politicians and many others don't know or recognise the facts.

edit to add: the fact you can quote me so well shows you read my stories very closely.

docholladay

@LonelyDad

Its funny how even thou I never served in the military. I get along so well with veterans who served in combat. Like I said, different hell, but made it possible for me to understand theirs.

Heck a retired "Ranger Sergeant" once told me to never get any training after pulling me off a bully. (got what he was looking for)

graybyrd
Updated:

The ultimate solution to war is to punish aggression:

"Should any nation take up arms against another, all nations should unitedly arise and prevent it." Consider: the alternative could well be nuclear annihilation of all.

Lazlo is scathingly dismissive of the United Nations, yet fails to appreciate that the five great powers of the time--the US, USSR, UK, France, and China--deliberately and knowingly created a crippled, fatally-flawed weakling that could never be a threat to their own sovereignty. The veto power of those five nations continues today, and is tantamount to demanding law enforcement of a blinded, hobbled, disarmed, dumb and deaf Sheriff. It seems grotesque in the extreme to then ridicule and demean the supposed "lawman" for failing to prevent crime.

Consider if in the creation of the United States (note the word "united") we were only able to do so if Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Georgia and Virginia were granted permanent VETO powers over any legislative proposal or order of the federated government, regardless of how many states were to join the union. An unworkable government? Jealously and injustice? Think about it...

The ultimate answer to world peace and the continuing existence of the world of man demands that we must achieve a unity of nations, so dedicated to the common good that the notion of a nation committing aggression against another would be as unthinkable as Idaho invading Washington to overthrow its government and seize its ports, or of California armed forces storming up through Oregon to seize the Columbia River, claiming the right to divert its flow to satisfy the insatiable demands of its hugely more populous cities.

Or lay in bed at night and wait for the blinding flash reflecting off the bedroom walls.

Ernest Bywater

@graybyrd

The ultimate solution to war is to punish aggression:


The problem lies in how you define what is a level of aggression acceptable as a to respond with war, and what isn't. Some example from the last few decades:

1. Is it acceptable to go to war against a country that allows terrorists to have training centres in ti and even provided material support to them?

2. At what point does another country's interference with your citizens and businesses constitute a level of aggression to make war justifiable?

3. How do you take suitable military action against terrorist groups?

3.a. Does the refusal to properly deal with an eliminate illicit drug cartels and act of aggression by the country the cartels are housed in?

All are very complex and difficult questions with overlapping political consequences.

Replies:   docholladay
Ernest Bywater

@graybyrd

scathingly dismissive of the United Nations, yet fails to appreciate that the five great powers of the time--the US, USSR, UK, France, and China--deliberately and knowingly created a crippled, fatally-flawed weakling that could never be a threat to their own sovereignty.


The problem with the United nations goes back to League of Nations. When the UN the big power blocs set it up much the same, but also gave themselves some power over much of what it does, because they were fed up with how totally useless the League of Nations was. Thus the UN was never going to be anything really worthwhile, beyond a facade some of the larger powers could hide behind.

The League of Nations was killed by some angry power hungry US Senators. The original proposal by Woodrow Wilson gave the League power to stop the sort of things Japan and Hitler did between the wars to build up their armies, and would have been able to deal with Hitler's and Japan's moves on their neighbours. But when it went to the US Senate for approval a few banded together to stop it and make the League a paper tiger, not because they were against it as such, but because it gave them an opportunity to stick mud in Wilson's eye by stopping something he wanted. Since the US wouldn't support his proposal the other nations didn't. In the end the paper tiger version was proposed and adopted. At the time the US had the prestige to get it through, if they supported it, but it died in the senate and most of the death and mayhem since then can be laid at the doorstep of those who refused to arm a world policeman.

Also tied in with the stopping of the original League proposal was Wilson's proposal to not economically cripple Germany. When that died and everyone raided the Germany economy they created the situation Hitler was able to exploit to come to power, and also created a hatred for the other countries amongst most Germans.

docholladay

@Ernest Bywater

1. Is it acceptable to go to war against a country that allows terrorists to have training centres in ti and even provided material support to them?


In my opinion no. One thing I would love to see happen is for the news media to stop making them the major headline news events. Publicity that just costs more lives.

Of course that bit about the publicity is just my opinion. But all bully type thugs seem to want to have a great big reputation as "Bad asses".

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@docholladay

In my opinion no. One thing I would love to see happen is for the news media to stop making them the major headline news events. Publicity that just costs more lives.


Correct, and what made it worse was when the UN recognised the PLO as a valid political entity, that just encourage every other would be terrorist dictator to see a way to power, which is why they've flourished so well since.

Replies:   BlinkReader
BlinkReader

@Ernest Bywater

Publicity that just cost more lives


You think like publicity for "The story about two cities" - Aleppo and Mosul?

In both, legal government tries to free city from rebels (IMHO rebels = rabid animals in both of them) and look at the press coverage for both of them.

It's so stupid that even Al Jazeera has text about it - can you imagine this?

Grant

@graybyrd

The ultimate solution to war is to punish aggression:

"Should any nation take up arms against another, all nations should unitedly arise and prevent it."

You do realise that what you are saying is that the ultimate solution to War is War?

Replies:   Jim S  graybyrd
Jim S
Updated:

@Grant


You do realise that what you are saying is that the ultimate solution to War is War?


It was my experience growing up that a playground bully could generally be stopped with a quick punch to the nose. Does such an observation apply to a nation? I don't know. But turning the other cheek won't work in my view. I remember seeing a quote to the effect that "....the meek shall inherit the earth but, unfortunately, it will only be measured 6 by 3."

The 60s was famous for peace, love and understanding. And that "we won't study war no more." I don't think that is in mankind's immediate future. We need a few more millennia before we reach that level of social development.

Until then, we must retain the resolve the punch the bully in the nose or watch innocents die.

Replies:   docholladay  Grant
graybyrd
Updated:

@Grant

Conflict resolution depends on how the players choose to play the game, right?

In England it was possible for the police to enforce the law unarmed as the lawbreakers generally recognized the rules: no gun violence. In America, we've accepted that those kinder & gentler rules never would fly in our inherently violent nation.

If an aggressor nation comes across the border with tanks, artillery and armed troops, the only feasible way to stop the carnage is with a superior opposing force. Call it "war" if you wish, or call it defense.

The preferred solution is the "no guns" approach but that requires both sides to agree to the rules.

The element of unity is essential to stop armed aggression. Just as the old film, "High Noon" illustrated, the sheriff, alone and isolated, would die in defense of the town and would fail against superior numbers. When the townspeople finally rose up in unity and stood behind the sheriff, the criminal element was put down.

It's the same with outlaw nations. A united defense is necessary to put an end to aggression. Or you can isolate yourself behind a closed door and wait until they finally come for you, too.

Someone mentioned terrorists. That's asymmetrical war, involving insurgents hiding among non-combatant civilians. In the early history of European dominance in the Middle East, the British used the "Jade Force" approach: scorched earth, smoking foundations, and no surviving village population. That quickly resolved the problem of insurgency.

Today that is not acceptable, although the result is usually the same. It just takes much longer with incredible suffering by the trapped populations. Example: Mosul or Aleppo, to name two. Perhaps the Jade Force approach would be more merciful, who knows?

A body of world statesmen with supporting nations, and a respected world organization that could provide resources and personnel to resolve the multitude of issues would eventually ease tensions to a point where the terrorists and their leaders could be isolated and eliminated. But that requires much more unity, dedication to purpose, the elimination of aggressor nations that indulge in "proxy warfare" in the afflicted region to further their own interests, and much, much patience and dogged determination.

At this point, none of that exists. Perhaps we should offer the opportunity to television networks to cordon the area, engage squadrons of TV-camera equipped drones, and commercialize it all as a gritty "reality" series. Real blood, real bodies, and real violence. Real, raw entertainment. With an occasional crucifixion of a terrorist leader for prime time specials.

Replies:   ustourist  REP
docholladay

@Jim S

Heck wrong target. I always put my foot in their balls as the opening move. Funny how they always said I didn't fight fair. I never started them but I usually was the only one standing when it was over. Nice part about being a loner, I did not have to worry about hitting the wrong person.

ustourist

@graybyrd

The Jade Force approach would be almost acceptable if it was restricted only to those countries who actually engaged in war. Unfortunately, both the Russian bloc and USA were/are more into waging war by proxy rather than getting involved directly. Sending arms, trainers, special forces 'assistants' and money to rebels or anarchists just results in the local civilian population being killed and maimed but those who incited the violence still don't get to face justice. Nowadays it is primarily those funding the terrorists who are the warmongers, not the citizens of any particular country, and since those warmongers often control the UN through veto, and ignore international courts and law, modern warfare is more about maiming civilians and spreading fear outside your own borders.

sejintenej
Updated:

@richardshagrin


If the consequence of divorce was for the employee to lose his job, or at least the preference that got him his job if he had to get another one, there might be less dissolution of marriages.


The act of divorce indicates that either a) the man made a poor choice and his judgement is faulty and/or b) the wife made a poor choice and her judgement is faulty and/or one of them broke their marriage vows so that one is a disgrace.
For very many years and certainly during my early years of work to be involved in divorce automatically made the employee not only out of a job in the City but he was not to be spoken to or of for life.
I know of one man who was forced to flee to Paris in disgrace and from there to Havana where he lived and died in poverty. His family were shunned by everyone. In about 1960 it was suggested that the family club together to have his body returned to the UK; his disgrace was such that nobody offered a single penny.

Grant

@Jim S

Until then, we must retain the resolve the punch the bully in the nose or watch innocents die.

I don't disagree.
The fact is unless you are prepared to allow other countries to do as they wish, armed conflict (War) is the only way of opposing them.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@Grant

Well, the USA tends to use sanctions restricting trade and sometimes like Cuba for years, refuse to let its citizens go there. And/or promising refugees from the sanctioned country refuge. And of course proxy attacks. Bombastic statements can be made, usually without result, but may make the speaker feel better. War is not the only way. They may not work, or as well, but no-fly zones sometimes help.

Replies:   Grant
Grant
Updated:

@richardshagrin

War is not the only way.


It is when the other side chooses armed conflict.

If you are not prepared to enforce any peacefull forms of control, then there is no point in negotiating them in the first place.

Either you are prepared to enforce them- ie armed force, War. Or you're not; might as well just let them do as they wish.

They may not work, or as well, but no-fly zones sometimes help.


It's nice that it's possible to have limited forms of war that aren't wars at all. Sort of like the police action in Korea all those years ago.

War, what war?

Replies:   docholladay
docholladay

@Grant

One of the major problems I think with war now a days. Is the way the politicians even after declaring the war, regardless of label. Then turn around and tell the military how to fight it. Those darn so called dmz lines just turn the soldiers (regardless of country) into defenseless targets when the enemy sets up on the other side and takes free shots. How many soldiers have been killed because of those darn dmz lines.

REP
Updated:

@graybyrd


In England it was possible for the police to enforce the law unarmed as the lawbreakers generally recognized the rules: no gun violence. In America, we've accepted that those kinder & gentler rules never would fly in our inherently violent nation.


Overall I liked and agreed with your post. The observations that I would make are:

1) The English people can be just as violent as we are and they have a similar problem with gun control (i.e., in England, many criminals have guns, while most law-abiding citizens do not).

2) Not all English police enforce their laws without guns. When they go to arrest a violent criminal, they go armed. They also have SWAT teams.

Replies:   ustourist
ustourist

@REP

The term used was "WAS POSSIBLE". The situation has changed over the last 50 or so years, starting with the Yardies coming in from Jamaica, who had no respect for the police or life generally.
Prior to that the enforcement was done by criminals themselves to a large extent, as if a police officer was injured or shot at, the police would investigate, raid, and otherwise disrupt any criminal activity in that particular area, which made earning a living as a criminal far harder. Criminals were known to turn in offenders who killed cops, just to get back to a more peaceful life with less visible street presence by the police.
As for armed police, special units that are permanently armed when on duty have been around for decades, but most people are unaware of the fact and because the arms were not visible, the public perception was that they didn't exist. The best public example of that was hostage PC Trevor Lock, who was armed during the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 and neither the other hostages nor terrorists were aware, nor was he ever checked for weapons because everyone knew the English police didn't carry them.

Replies:   REP
REP

@ustourist

The term used was "WAS POSSIBLE".


I agree that is the term you used. There are more than one way to interpret that phrase.

You evidently intended "was possible' in the context of time (i.e. it was possible in the past).

I interpreted 'was possible' in the context of possibility (i.e. something is or is not possible).

My question now is: Have the English population become so violent that it is no longer possible to enforce the law without being armed?

It also sounds as if you are saying that the English police adopted a belief that a certain amount of crime was permissible and acceptable, so they didn't pursue criminal activity as seriously as they did when someone shot at an officer.

Replies:   ustourist  graybyrd
ustourist

@REP

It wasn't actually me that wrote the initial comment, but no matter, we obviously read it different ways.

A certain amount of crime is always going to be of a nature where it couldn't be prosecuted, but could be contained by visible policing.
Personally, I believe that they did consider that a certain amount was acceptable and possibly even desirable, but have no proof to sustain that belief.

Your use of the term "English population" answers a large part of that question. There is a fair amount of violent crime by natives, but the majority of gun crime is within the black immigrant population and their descendants, to the extent that there is a task force dedicated solely to black gun crime. Bearing in mind that a higher proportion of immigration is from the Asian subcontinent and (more recently) eastern Europe, violent gun crime is generally confined to a small minority of immigrant groups.
The incidence of violent crime seemed to rise parallel with the knowledge that the death penalty was to be rescinded, and the removal of police officers from walking the beat to being almost entirely car bound, thus removing their contact with the public.

Overall, police in the UK still are generally unarmed and even a Taser requires permission before use (and is only issued to certain officers), but the availability of arms from abroad is now greater, as is the number of people prepared to use them. It would be perfectly possible to enforce the law with only specialized groups being armed - as is the case in most areas - but to be successful at that the police would have to stop alienating the public and take their job seriously, which is not the case at present. Investigation of crimes often does not even occur, unless politically convenient. I would stress that the political element is not derived from central government of either party, but what was a professional force is now tainted by internal empire building and political correctness. Success is determined by successful prosecutions, not the prevention of crime, and minor crimes by non-professional criminals are easier to win.

graybyrd
Updated:

@REP

I wrote "was possible" and thought the language was clear in the context the comment was made... not as a complete dissertation of that particular example, but as a brief introductory phrase to a more comprehensive point I was trying to make. Hence, "was"... meaning "then" and not "now." (Now I wonder what fuzzy wooliness will come of this explanation?)

ustourist's explanation of the English police situation speaks volumes to the evolution of violence and the breakdown of "civil" enforcement. Please pay particular attention to the point (in fact) that only a minority of players refusing to honor the culture is needed to force the civil breakdown. In effect, one thug with a gun trumps a city full of cops with night sticks and whistles.

Here in the US, we graduated from clubs, saps, knives and hatchets, to (thanks to Prohibition-motivated organized crime) automatic weapons and interstate operations. In typical US fashion, our federal forces upped the ante, and state and city police forces soon followed. What had been initiated as Special Weapons and Tactics squads for exceptional situations were almost overnight applied to civil disturbances such as Ferguson, MO being confronted with phalanxes of SWAT teams, armored vehicles, automatic weapons, and roof-mounted body-armored snipers training their sights and gun-barrels on unarmed civilians. But, since the majority on the streets were minority malcontents, and some had taken to bricks through storefronts, a few pistol shots (mostly at each other) and unseemly, insulting shouts and gestures directed at the helmeted, face-shielded RoboCops, the police response was deemed commensurate and appropriate.

And that's where it stands in the US today. I do suspect the incoming Administration will have even more dramatic riot control methods in mind.

Replies:   REP
REP

@graybyrd

I don't know that much about the law enforcement situation in England, so I'll accept ustourist's description. Perhaps someone else familiar with that situation will choose to comment.

As far as law enforcement here in the US is concerned, I agree with you the situation is out of control. None of the combatants are ready to back down. The way I see it law enforcement used to be about combating crime. Today, crowd control seems to be a major aspect of their duties; especially crowd control for groups that tend to become violent. In our current society, it seems like every venue that brings large groups of people together has a violent element to it. The group holds a rally or demonstration and the predominate emotions are hate and anger. All too frequently, those emotions lead to violence and acts of civil disobedience, which means the police have to step in.

Abortion is a perfect example. The one group favors Abortion and the other is opposed to it. They meet face-to-face and there is anger and hate on both sides, which escalates to physical confrontation. The police have to step in between the two groups and separate them. Of course, the police do so dressed in their riot gear and wearing their bulletproof vests. The confrontation then becomes a three-way conflict, but in the end, the police separate the two groups; the injured get sent to the hospital for treatment and a few people get arrested.

Perhaps, it would be better to let the two groups fight it out. The police can surround the groups to prevent the violence from overflowing into the surrounding neighborhood. Anyone wanting to leave the combat area can just walk through the police lines. When all is said and done, the police can move in and take control. Send the injured to the hospital and do whatever else is necessary to clean up the aftermath.

Replies:   LonelyDad  LonelyDad
LonelyDad

@REP

That's just one example of the polarization that is taking over our society. No longer do people try to get along, it's "My way is the right way, and you can go to h*ll", and usually they are willing to help them on their way. You have to go out to the far edges of extremism, because that is how one gets the sound bites and film clips to get your 15 seconds of fame.

Replies:   richardshagrin
LonelyDad

@REP

Perhaps, it would be better to let the two groups fight it out. The police can surround the groups to prevent the violence from overflowing into the surrounding neighborhood. Anyone wanting to leave the combat area can just walk through the police lines. When all is said and done, the police can move in and take control. Send the injured to the hospital and do whatever else is necessary to clean up the aftermath.


Sounds like the fans at a typical Rugby game. :-)

Replies:   REP
richardshagrin

@LonelyDad

"My way is the right way, and you can go to h*ll",


I suspect you are looking for "My way or the highway".

Replies:   LonelyDad
REP

@LonelyDad


Sounds like the fans at a typical Rugby game. :-)


Out of curiosity, which group of fans is the most violent - Rugby or Soccer.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@REP

Out of curiosity, which group of fans is the most violent - Rugby or Soccer.


Australian Rules Football fans.

Replies:   BlinkReader
LonelyDad

@richardshagrin

That may be the traditional phrase, but in today's adversarial environment, I think mine is more accurate.

LonelyDad

I don't listen to on-air news much, but I've noticed in the print media we're not hearing too much from the Reverend Jesse or Al Sharpton. Maybe the media is starting to realize that they aren't contributing anything positive these days, and aren't worth the coverage. One can live in hope.

docholladay

I would be much more likely to pay more attention if they would start telling about those people who actually help others. And I don't mean the organizations like the Red Cross or Salvation Army. I mean individuals who actively help someone.

BlinkReader

@Ernest Bywater

Australian Rules Football fans.


You obviously newer have heard of "fans" of real football (for you from wrong part of the pond -soccer) from Balkan area or Russia.

Most important rule if you want to stay alive in towns where real football sport match is held - newer walk near sport arenas or ways to them near time of match ...

They can eat your Australian rules Football fans for breakfast, and then go to kill each other for desert :D

Back to Top